You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

The sci-fi loving public and foundationally minded cosmologists alike are enamored of black holes. Black holes, as everyone knows, form from the crushed remains of certain burned-out stars -- those of a particular size whose gravitational collapse has outpaced their dwindling nuclear pressure, sending the leftover mass into a spiraling dive toward oblivion. (The mass is "leftover" because...

The sci-fi loving public and foundationally minded cosmologists alike are enamored of black holes. Black holes, as everyone knows, form from the crushed remains of certain burned-out stars -- those of a particular size whose gravitational collapse has outpaced their dwindling nuclear pressure, sending the leftover mass into a spiraling dive toward oblivion. (The mass is "leftover" because the first step in forming black holes is a supernova, where a huge portion of the star's bulk is ejected into space, leaving the core to fend for itself.) Down, down the stellar remnant goes, crunched ever tighter by the force of its own gravitation, possibly -- here the public and cosmologists differ in their degree of certainty -- terminating a zero-volume point called a "singularity."

Maybe. But even though "everyone knows" that singularities reside at the centers of black holes, the popular science version of this concept may have outpaced the actual science.

Singularities are philosophically unlikely objects -- if "object" is even the right term for one -- that seem to have more in common with the world of the mathematician than that of the experimental physicist. They are infinitely dense (singularities, that is) and have no volume at all, making them, in a certain sense, abstractions; much like mathematical points. Some would say, *too much* like mathematical points; or too much like "mathematical singularities," which my mathematician friends tell me is a bit of a catch-all phrase for places where an object is either ill-behaved or simply undefined. Even the infinite number of points "found" in a perfectly well-behaved line are, when you get down to it, a geometric idealization, a kind of mental shorthand for things that don't enjoy actual material existence.

But that's just what singularities do. They not only have material existence of their own, they have conspicuous observable effects, even powering the cores of active galactic nuclei. Like overacting children insisting that they are still there, these inaccessible, less-than-zero somethings warp spacetime severely, leading to the fabled contortions we all hope will one day allow for superluminal communication, or even time travel.

image: fernando

And yet the general public will also be forgiven for repeatedly raising basic objections to singularities, ones that are by no means to be dismissed as naive simply for being straightforward:

1. An object with zero volume is no object at all. (A bit more subtly: if a singularity has literally no volume, then it does not exist in space. This appears to be equivalent to saying it does not exist.)

2. An object cannot be infinitely dense unless it has always been so. (Again, more subtly: finite densities are on an asymptote approaching infinite density or, assuming spacetime to be flat, infinite rarefaction. But this is simply to say that any real object has a certain density.)

3. The Big Bang was supposed, in the SCM, to have begun with a singularity -- an infinitely hot point that expanded, and thus cooled, to the presently observed state of affairs. But how does something "cool down" from infinity? (If the cosmos was infinitely hot 14 billion years ago, it is infinitely hot today: upping the volume is merely dividing infinity by some positive integer.)

The hedge claim sometimes made by cosmologists that singularities "approach infinite density‚" or are "almost infinite" merely takes us back to point #2. "Approaching infinite" is finite.

So perhaps we have to wait for a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity really to understand singularities, in the meanwhile treating them as quasi-mathematical conveniences. This need be no barrier to research, of course; quantum mechanics works perfectly well without anyone, as Richard Feynman humorously noted, understanding any of it. But there's a foundational question of a significant order lying in the hearts of certain collapsed stars.

image: Heaven's Gate

However we feel about them, it turns out there's a big one in Messier 33.

The mother of all stellar black holes has been discovered this month by James Orosz of San Diego State University, California, and his team. The whopper weighs in at almost 16 times the mass of the sun, larger than any detected so far, and several times larger than many. Stellar black holes, we should hasten to add, are distinct from the supermassive holes at the centers of galaxies, which can be billions of times the solar mass.

What Orosz and his team found in the Messier galaxy seems to be a collapsing binary, with the huge star -- 70 solar masses! -- eclipsing the huge hole every few days. This is the "sweetheart" type of configuration that allows for precise X-ray measurements to be taken from Earth as matter is sucked from one body to the other, radiating as it goes.

Black hole enthusiasts of all stripes are thrilled by the find, showing again how foundational questions bring us together. Whatever singularities are, one of their most significant effects in the cosmos is the generation of delight.

General relativity shows that gravity can be thought to distort space-time. Close to a mass, such as the earth, one is ahead in time compared to further away from the mass. Now it has been my contention that a better model consists of a 4th dimension recognised as spatio-energetic rather than time.So at the black hole there is a distortion of space along the 4th dimension. Because the distortion is so large it extends into unobservable afore space beyond observable 3D vector space, currently regard as the present because the space-time continuum model is used. Afore space is not visible because light does not travel backwards from it. Making the appearance of a black hole.

There is not necessarily a singularity at the centre of a black hole but just a very large mass capable of distorting the unknown medium of space into a very deep "gravity well". Beyond the hole will be unknown space not the future. Therefore time travel will not be possible using black-holes. The future and past exist in the mind not in the fabric of the universe.

Singularities are a problem when considered from a 3D vector space perspective only.Such as a point at the centre of a mass when gravity is considered. However although visible 3D vector space ends at the singularity, the 4th spatio energetic dimension continues on to afore space which is further space that is unobservable from our 3D vector space position.

We both agree that space-time can become warped by gravity from very massive objects. Since GR and QM are two pieces of the puzzle that do not fit, I'm inclined to think there are missing pieces to the puzzle. I know you believe there is a 4th spatio-energetic dimension that explains time and gravity. I wanted to ask you if you suspect a missing set of laws of physics that govern mass, gravity and space?

One does not notice anything missing until they bump against the speed of light velocity restriction. Conservation and restriction are familiar themes in physics. I played with that idea in trying to come up with a "pendulum-wormhole" physics. Within this pendulum-wormhole, there is an exception to the laws of General Relativity. I decided to replace a velocity restriction with a mass-distance restriction. What I discovered what kind of interesting. Imagine that you're in a skateboard park. There are two points on the opposite sides of a bridge. The bridge is flat, but it spans a skateboard ramp that is steep and deep. The bridge is space-time. The skapeboard ramp is hyperspace. If you take the bridge, you will get to the other side, but it will take more time. If you take the skateboard ramp, you will accelerate quickly down to the bottom. At the bottom, you will have incredibly high velocity, but will give that up as you come up the other side. A pendulum-wormhole is a lot like that. But what is interesting is that the added depth into hyperspace makes the distance longer. The skateboard ramp is a longer traversed distance then the bridge. Likewise, I expect the distance between two stars to be faster by hyperspace, but a farther distance. It is the opposite of GR length contraction.

The short answer is yes. The alteration of the fundamental parameters of a space-time model make it is necessary to propose new rules. Which may, with sufficient validation from scientific investigations become accepted as Laws of physics.These rules will attempt to cement the fundamental aspects of the model.

Take the speed of light as a particular case in point. Speed being distance travelled per unit time. When the 4th dimension is considered spatial then this will become distance travelled across 3D vector space divided by a unit of distance travelled along the 4th spatial dimension.

This no longer gives speed as such but a trajectory through quaternion space. When approaching a large mass, the change of trajectory gives less 3D vector space traversed per unit of distance along the 4th dimension. This will cause the appearance of being ahead in time compared to an observer further away from the mass. The physics has not changed but the interpretation has. Attaining super-luminal "velocity" becomes a matter of attaining the correct trajectory through quaternion space.

This demonstrates to me the need to go back to my ideas and try to ensure that I thoroughly eradicate the space-time concept from them. It is difficult to explain a new model without reference to the old model that everyone is using and understands.

Jason thank you, explaining my ideas is helpful for my own comprehension of them.(Note to self second edition now overdue.)

I have said that it is theoretically possible for sub atomic particles to pass directly along the 4th dimension (thus having a trajectory close to the orientation of the 4th dimension), which will give them the appearance of something travelling faster than light and time travelling. This does not disagree with Einstein's assertion about the speed of light because this is not motion through 3D vector space. It is also not speed when reinterpreted with the new model.It is not time travel either because time is not one of the parameters.

When a car goes along a road, the whole earth with road, car and occupants are all progressing along the 4th dimension. The car is not just traversing 3D space.This allows the perception of speed without there being any physical time parameter.

Einstein visualised a static geometry for space-time. Which can be represented by compressing the 3 dimensions of space to a 2D plane and this plane is at 90 degrees to the time dimension.Time passes but the space is static. I am trying to convey the same geometric arrangement but the 2D plane, representing 3D space, can now be visualised moving along the 4th dimension. This is contraction of the material universe along the 4th dimension ie. from the outermost region of the hypersphere to the inner most region. Not direct contraction of 3D space.

An animation would give a better representation than a drawing on a piece of paper(unless it was done as a flick book.)The matter of the universe is passing through the unknown medium of space causing distortion and disturbances of it, experienced as forces. It is a dynamic model, nothing is static. Even objects appearing static in 3D space are changing co-ordinate along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Using the space-time model this is currently interpreted as time passing for the static object.

Jason the most helpful suggestion I can give is to get rid of the notion of time from all of your plans and think only in terms of distances and orientation of trajectories.

Thank you for your thoughts. Getting rid of time, in favor of trajectories, is an interesting thought. I agree that there are significant challenges to describing new interpretations of established physics and new ideas within a hypothetical physics framework. It is tough when you have a very rare gift of visualization; I imagine you can visualize the 4th spacio-dimension. You're probably right. But explaining it to the rest of us is hard.

As for my ideas, I really had to explain it in a way that a layperson could understand it. Physics has become so mathematical and difficult to understand that you have to be a genius (or insane) just to grasp it.

I believe that appearances can be deceiving. I believe that nature is more than happy to decieve us; and secretly giggles at our misunderstandings. When you look at the mathematical physics, there are simple relationships that appear for no reason. There is no physical reason why c, the speed of light, should be the same for all observing inertial frames. The laws of physics do look like absolutes. That got me thinking about who or what has the power to make an absolute law of nature.

As for a fourth energetic dimension, can I assume that entropy is built into it?

Firstly the model I am proposing says that there is space on either side of the visible 3D space that we occupy. At locations with 4th dimension co-ordinates that fall outside of that visible 3D space. Therefore the material universe that we can experience is not the whole but part of a larger continuum.The universe is not an entirely closed system as far as energy is concerned, though the Mega universe is.The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

Secondly the material universe in the model I am proposing is not expanding (although structures within it are). The observations giving the impression of universal expansion may be explained by the change in 4th dimensional spatial position of the "observer" compared to the 4th dimensional origin of the EM radiation that forms the images, in my opinion. Although there other alternative explanations that various people have suggested.

The 4th dimension can be regarded as a scale of potential energy. Measured from the outer most region of the hypersphere to the inner most region.Outer most region has highest energy level and inner most has lowest energy level.Change of potential energy is equivalent to change in 4th dimensional position.Both kinetic and potential energy are also a change in spatial position. As matter looses potential energy this is balanced by increasing mass energy of matter and kinetic energy of circular motion within 3D vector space.

This energy is released as progression along 4th dimension ceases giving new big bang or recycling through the singularity (from 3D space perspective)back to outer region of hypersphere.The return to a high potential energy level is essential as it is loss of this potential energy that supplies the energy for the creation of a new universe.

It is the 3 vector dimensions that are associated with kinetic energy and thus also heat.Kinetic energy being motion energy within 3d space. The greater the speed of a mass(or "ratio of distances") or combined speed (or "ratio of distances") of a group of particles, the greater the kinetic energy.

Using the model that I am proposing, very high velocity will increase the 3D vector space distance travelled per unit of distance along 4th dimension, giving a trajectory that is further from the 4th dimensional orientation. This causes an apparent slowing of time. However the change in trajectory will also be resisted by the drag from the rest of the universe that continues to progress along the 4th dimension. Causing increase in inertia, observed as increase of mass. This prevents a sufficient velocity being reached for escape.

-Thoughts on the constant speed of light-.

The speed of light that we observe is composed of the distance travelled, giving change of position in 3D vector space, divided by corresponding distance equal to change in position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension,( measured as a time interval). The nature of the propagation of the light through quaternion space, (which is all space which ever dimension "one travels along"), means that the 2 distances are inseparable.The ratio of the distances being controlled by a property (not necessarily but possibly density) of the unknown medium that transmits the light waves.

However an observer moves the ratio of distances of the light will be the same. If the observer has a very high velocity time will appear to slow. This means that there is less change in distance along the 4th dimension made by the light, that is observed by this observer. So as both distances are inseparably linked, a correspondingly smaller distance in 3D space will have been traversed by the light, always giving the same ratio.The light is just EM radiation. One observer may see reflected or emitted light in the past compared to another. That does not mean that material objects themselves are smeared along the 4th dimension.The past does not exist as a physical reality, just as an illusion.

I almost forgot if the star is spinning when it collapses (angular momentum), then it is not actually a singularity, but an ellipse with two singularities one at each foci. It has been awhile but I thought if you were to travel in between the two foci the result was a closed time-like loop. Why abandon a discrete approach?

I liked your idea about describing trajectories, and getting rid of time, as a parameter because so many people have these romantic notions about time travel. You mentioned that you want to eradicate the concept of space-time. Let me tell you how that might be possible.

I am challenging the idea that the speed of light is the maximum velocity on the grounds that gravity distorts the trajectory of light and black holes trap light. In my view, space-time and the motion of particles can be described as the dynamic and conserved interaction between slower than light particles, speed of light photons, and faster than light gravitons. Gravitons (or gravity producig tachyons) are quantum particles with characteristics: a) they span the entire distance between two masses, b) can transmute via the exchange of conserved quantities, c) they quantize with units of mass x distance, d) they deal with mass directly, but indirectly with energy.

The relationship E=mc2 requires the enforcement of General Relativity; gravity bearing tachyons are not governed by GR; their relationship to E=mc2 requires modification.

There exists a class of tachyonic bosons of which gravity is included. From one to the next, these bosons may be transmuted via the correct conserved interaction. Some of these tachyons will produce wormholes suitable for FTL mass transport; the energy cost will be more reasonable. One of these tachyonic bosons is the wormion (its name is derived from the wormhole concept). The mass of your transport times the distance you want to go is a scalar integer multiple of the number of wormions you will need. GR only occurs inside of the shuttle; beyond that, the shuttle is traveling partially in hyperspace and partially in standard model space. The trip will be short, but the distance travelled will be further because of the excursion into hyperspace.

The short answer no was the reply to the question from Jason "As for a fourth energetic dimension, can I assume that entropy is built into it?"

I went on to say the 4th dimension is a scale of potential energy, as well as spatial co-ordinate. It is possible to have it as a scale because there is an absolute reference frame. That being the exterior and interior of the hypersphere.

It is the 3 vector dimensions that are associate with kinetic energy, thus also heat but can not be used as scales of kinetic energy because there is no absolute reference frame for the uniform orientation of the 3 dimensions in space. That is people on different parts of the earth will align their dimensions to the surface of the earth having a vertical and horizontal but when the earth is removed from the picture the people will have different orientations of their 3 dimensions dimensions, so they could not be superimposed.

I also went on to explain why entropy is not a major consideration in this model of the universe, because it is not a closed system. Observable space being within unobservable space. The second law of thermodynamics does not hold. I am not using a thermodynamic arrow of time but continuous loss of potential energy as the material universe moves towards the centre of the hypersphere.I believe entropy to be a big fat red herring.

I have discussed on another thread some of the anomalies within the cosmos that have been observed. Cosmological theories have evolved from the space-time model and observations are interpreted so that they will fit that model if possible.However if the model requires modification then so may the interpretation of astronomical data and conclusions drawn.

A singularity is assumed in 3 dimensional space. The centre point of a mass could be considered such a singularity. There is no where in space to go from here it would seem. However when the 4th dimension is considered spatial and runs from the exterior to the interior (centre of gravity) of the object then a line could be drawn from the singularity extending into afore space.Also as matter is always moving afore along the 4th dimension in the model I am proposing the singularity can be considered to be progressing along that line.

Its a pity you didn't expand my previous post, you would seen some other interesting ideas such thoughts on the speed of light within this alternative model.

it is interesting to see your ideas. I think that some of the particles you are talking of are hypothetical entities.I do not personally think that there are graviton particles but accept that these particles could actually be an interpretation of the underlying phenomena and work as a mathematical convenience.I agree that gravity acts instantaneously from our 3D space perspective.According to the Prime Quaternion model model instantaneous gravity is observed because it is due to afore-ward change in position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension and is therefore a force acting along this dimension. As change of spatial position along the 4th dimension is not recognised from 3D vector space there can be no speed measured.

I have already eradicated time from the physical parameters of the model. However communication of my ideas often requires use of space-time to make it comprehensible from the subjective space-time viewpoint. I find that I have to flip from describing it in the terms of the new spatial model to describing how it appears from a space-time viewpoint.This can cause a space-time description to be left in the new model where it doesn't belong.That is what I need to check and eradicate.

I apreciate your feedback. I was looking for a theory that was both plausible and easy to understand. I've been asked how I would ever prove such a theory. At this point, I am exploring the idea of allowing protons and neutrons to be "doped" with exotic and hypothetical tachyonic quarks. This of course brings up the problem of tachyons that want to move faster than the speed of light trying to be everywhere at once. If they had to be everywhere at once, then maybe one tachyon quark could occupy a quark position within many different protons. If this were the case, then the mass of the atomic material, let's say iron, would be very light. The tachyon doped material would chemically interact like iron, but the protons and neutrons would contain quarks that are tachyonic. As tachyons, these quarks would have no real mass, anyway. But secondarily, one tachyon quark could jump to other positions in some random way, before the proton or neutron ever noticed it was missing. In this way, tachyons could be stored, and their presence could be detected. Occasionally, a proton or neutron would notice a missing quark, and would replace it with a normal up/down quark; in this way, the tachyonic iron would have a decay rate, similar to radioactive materials. After some time, the really light tachyon iron would become ordinary iron. It would be unsafe to handle tachyonic iron without proper protection. But when the tachyon escapes, it does so as a spherical wavefront that emits faster than the speed of light.

I used iron as an example, but tachyons could be stored in any material. This material would be stored in the engine room of a starship with hyperdrive capability. When the time comes, the tachyonic iron would be chemically broken down into protons and neutrons. The neutrons would be wasted, but the protons would be accellerated into other tachyonic protons in an attempt to start a tachyonic transmutation reaction of the tachyonic gravity field all around us. If done properly, wormions would be generated in abundance. The wormion field would permeate the ship, and the chosen gravity field. If the ship accelerated just slightly, it would begin to fall into the hyperspace accelleration field. The mass of the ship over a distance in lightyears would require some quantity of wormions. When the ship reached its destination, the wormions would decay back into normal gravity bearing tachyons.

I think the idea is plausible enough for a hyperdrive engineering. It also gives the physics community something to look for should a strange meteor ever strike the earth. If the iron core meteor was unusually light, but got heavier over time, it might be explainable as a decay of tachyonic quarks into real quarks.

there are so many hypothetical entities and speculative mechanisms in your idea that I find it hard to grasp the plausibility. Within the shifting sands of possibilities it seems that anything could be possible but that doesn't make it plausible. Ideas can take us anywhere in our minds but those ideas do not necessarily translate directly back to observed reality. Although the speculation is fascinating.

Ray did liken your ideas to science fiction. It made me think that it would be marvellous if you created a whole fictional universe, in which the Laws of physics were of your own invention. All of your modes of transport were realisable within this universe and possibilities for adventure, discovery and invention immense.Such an undertaking might find wide appeal amongst the like minded.Perhaps it might be akin in some ways to Terry Pratchett's highly successful disk world series. Which has similarities to our own world but is also very different in many interesting and amusing ways.I hope you do not find such a suggestion offensive, because that is not the intention.

Engineering requires solid foundations. If the ideas can be pinned down within some framework of scientifically verifiable theory, then they might find engineering applications.

I understand that my ideas sound like science fiction. Given what is known about present day physics, I don't see how any new capabilities can ever emerge. There are plenty of superstring models that predict new forces and particles. Even if the LHC detects some new particle, it doesn't seem likely that anything useful will come from it. I'm dissapointed that so much effort goes into figuring out if the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself. I don't understabd how answering such questions is any more useful than speculating about ontological physics.

I am starting from the premise that some of these science fiction ideas like FTL travel and manipulation of physical matter (thermodynamic violating mechanisms) are possible. If so, then it is up to me to figure out (1) where it would fit within the framework of current physics (2) how would we discover it, and (3) how would we measure it.

If hyperdrive physics is possible, then there have to be some kind of operational principles; I can't just say that the warp engine works via some mysterious means; that would defeat my intent. I can see that gravity can overpower light (e.g. black holes). My gut tells me that gravity is implemented by particle/forces that are faster than light. If this is so, then finding gravity waves, frequency and wavelength, might be a problem. So far, gravity waves have not been detected.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090819-gravitational-waves.html

Gravity is the best candidate to realize a hyperdrive physics. If so, then how does it work? In its present form (Newtonian gravity), it's not very helpful. Beyond the event horizon, your faster than light travel very quickly lands you on a heap of very densely stacked black hole trash; that's not very helpful. By suggesting that gravity is implemented by tachyonic particles, it gives me something to interact with. If gravitons are tachyonic, they cannot have mass, and they would be undetectable as particles. But I would have to isolate the particular gravity field I need (e.g. the gravity from the Alpha Centauri star). I would have to detect its direction and magnitude. That requires that I come up with previously undetermined graviton properties and a method of detection.

Getting back to reality, does anyone know what we need to look for to detect the presense of or use of a hyperdrive? Do we know what kind of radiation it might release?

But if you think my efforts would be better utilized in detemining if the universe will expand for another trillion years, then, well, I'll look into it.

Regarding the "science fiction" analogy, travelling to the Moon was science fiction a century before July 1969. Some people argued that a rocket could not work in space where it had nothing to push against (like Terra firma) because they had not considered the application of Newton's Third Law to the problem.

And one of my former NASA collegues was working on an approach to Spacetime travel that sort of combined the Stargate idea with multi-dimensional (String Theory) physics.

I enjoy your imagination. I wish I could contribute more ideas. At first, I was unsure whether my E12 TOE has tachyons or not, but Lawrence didn't flinch at the idea. Those of us who have been in the field too long become indoctrinated on what we "CAN'T DO" rather than on what we "CAN DO". Never let a silly comment by me stop you from doing your best to prove it can be done.

I thought of you last weekend when my wife and I saw "The Time Traveller's Wife".

I appreciate your thoughts. I believe that we all want the same kinds of capabilities to come out of the physics. But the natural universe stubborly hordes its secrets. I don't have a powerful capacity for mathematics, but I do have creative thinking skills. I hope I can be of some use to the physics community.

There always have to pioneers who boldly go and do something that others claim is not possible. Or just can't fathom because it doesn't fit with existing physics or world view. Circumnavigating the earth, flying an aeroplane and building a laser spring to mind as three good examples. You are absolutely right, objectively, one area of physics is no more important or worthwhile than another.It is what we personally find of interest and therefore worth perusing, that determines the subjective value placed on a particular area of investigation. For you finding the technology of the future through novel physics comes top.For some others the ultimate conclusion of the universe or the unifying mechanics of quantum physics is top.

You have set yourself an enormous task.I admire your ambition.I also enjoy your posts, you write very well. In the light of that science fiction might make a profitable side line to fund your research, if you ever have the time to spare.

According to my model 3D vector space is surrounded by unobservable space further afore and aft along the 4th dimension. So rather than time travel to these spaces it would be another kind of space travel. There is potentially another whole material universe afore and aft occupying 3D space.We can not see it because we see EM radiation not material substance.

It has occurred to me that perhaps extreme cooling could be used.The strange disappearing behaviour of Bose-Einstein condensates may be evidence of this possibility.Levitation also.It may not be progressing along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension as normal matter because having lost its structure, it no longer has a normal centre of gravity.That is speculation but perhaps an interesting area for further research.

Newtonian gravity is in my opinion correct, it is an instantaneous force because it acts along the 4th dimension (therefore not contradicting Einstein). The 4th spatio-energetic dimension passes through the surface of the mass at every point on that surface and extends into the centre of gravity and beyond into afore space. Tachyon particles do not fit into this explanation.

On the blog about 2180 and warp drives I indicate my thoughts on the matter. I think these things are very unlikely. To be honest I think the whole futuristic idea of space travel and colonization may prove illusiory.

Tachyons are an artifact of the 26-dimensional bosonic string. However, tachyons exist in two forms. The first is they fly off to infinity at v -> infinity, or excitons of these field form condenstate states (M2-branes) at extreme energy. This is what I think lies at the core of a black hole, or as the quantization of the singularity. It might sound odd that tachyons might fly off to infinity, but there is no frame where they can be found at rest. Further, the inflationary universe with flat space appears spatially infinite and tachyons then go to infinity, which is a point removed from a three-sphere to define the flat space R^3. Topological quantum numbers are involved here. In the case of condensates, the imaginary eigen-mass-energy of the field becomes real valued and the faster than light properties of the particle are lost.

I want to express my gratitude. Everytime you explain why it's not possible, you leave a trail of cool and useful ideas. When you said,

"In the case of condensates, the imaginary eigen-mass-energy of the field becomes real valued and the faster than light properties of the particle are lost."

you inadvertently provided the physical conditions for a reversible interaction between tachyons and sub light particles. Condensation usually occurs on glass (more generally, a geometric surface) when the watervapor content of air is too high. I can use that to create a two dimension surface which contains tachyon -phylic particles. As I've speculated before, gravitons are tachyons that travel along the direction of a gravitational field. They would have to pass through a condensation surface. In doing so, there would be an opportunity for an interaction between them. I now have a way to convert gravitons into something more useful. This also solves my "directional" problem. I wanted to be able to select a particular source of the gravity field.

Can you think of any way to select only tachyons from a particular source L meters (or lightyears) away?

I believe you stated that the Hawking-Penrose energy condition restricts the hyperdrives, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the idea is that geodesic incompleteness occurs inside of black holes. To get a hyperdrive to work within a context of General Relativity, you need more energy then is available in the entire universe. I agree that General Relativity effectively forbids wormholes and hyperdrives. We have to get rid of General Relativity; we just don't know how. Does GR work inside of the event horizon? If not, then what prevents it from working?

GR does work inside a black hole hole. This issue is whether one can set up a local set of points on a spatial surface (3-dim space in time) which spread or move faster than light. In one sense this happens! The eternal inflation or accelerated universe implies regions beyond the comsological horizon where galaxies are being comoved on frames faster than light. The speparating points of space are such that far enough out they are moving away faster than light, and anything being frame dragged by them is also. The CMB is light from a region moving with z = 1000 or so, and atoms there are moving about that much faster than light. Space can in a sense do what ever it wants, and the speed of light is a local principle which relates space and time in a conversion factor and Lorentz boosts.

So can we do this locally? Can I create a bubble in space where those points inside somehow move faster than light? The Alcubierre warp drive is such a thing. However, due to the localness of ths solution there needs to be some source for this spacetime curvature which turns out to have negative energy and violate the Hawking-Penrose energy condition. For the universe since the situation is global that violation does not happen, though the pressure term is negative --- which is a bit odd. If the pressure is too large this results in a big rip or phantom energy, which does violate these energy conditions. I don't think this obtains, but the idea is interesting for it means we need to address foundations for why not.

It does turn out one can sneek in a modest amount of energy to set up this warp drive configuration. You don't need to consume whole galaxies of mass-energy. However, something funny does happen. If you set up this negative energy condition by some means it turns out that positive energy sneeks in inevitably to swamp your set up. This can in fact come in the form of Hawking-like radiation. This has some connections to the laws of thermodynamics as well, and this appears to be some case of a general condition similar to the second law of thermodynamics.

I mentioned cooling in relation to the alternative quaternion model in post (prior to Brian.I don't know if you read it).You appear to have the approach where some new physics is assumed and other physics held onto rigidly. Why to your mind can some things be altered but not others? Might get lucky that way but the odds? It appears "hit and miss".Is there some systematic method by which you research one possibility and then go onto another? Are you taking this particular approach because a number of various options have already been eliminated from consideration?

What if black holes are not black holes as such but just deep gravity wells that extend into afore space. Will all of the black hole mathematics still apply. I doubt it.

I agree that space can do whatever it wants (e.g. expand faster than light). The Penrose Hawking condition suggests that using tremendous amounts of energy-mass will cause a singularity which makes hyper-drives intractable. This gives us two strategies. First, can we discover a way to warp space without using large amounts of energy/negative energy? That should prevent singularities from forming. Second, if we allow a singulariy to form, can it be manipulated in such a way as to form a wormhole? It makes me wonder if we might have to anticipate the existence of naturally occuring p and/or d-brane objects that are drifting through space waiting to be discovered and harnessed.

If the second law of thermodynamics conspires against our warp drive, maybe it does so at the speed of light. If that is true, then, as long as we are traveling faster, then we might make it to our destination without getting swamped by Hawking radiation.

Hypothetically, if a wormhole could be created (by the power of imagination), let's say it extends a length L= 1 lightyear. If the acceleration is

a(x) = a0sin(2pix/L), then an interesting thing happens. Behind you, as you accellerate down the wormhole, light is redshifted. The further behind you consider, the more it is redshifted (radiowave shifted). After some distance behind you, photons hitting your backside are depleted of energy. Beyond a certain distance, no light can reach you from an effective event horizon. However, in front of you, you will need sunscreen because of the blue shift. I don't know what the maximum cosmic ray frequency is, but whatever that maximum is, you will not be able to see beyond it (or be cosmic ray cooked by it). Did I mention that radiation shielding will be a requirement for hyper-drive travel? Sunscreen and sunglasses won't cut it.

Here is another interesting feature of wormholes. The massive accelerations and decelerations are spread out over a whole lightyear. The maximum tolerable acceleration that your spaceship can withstand (my guess is 1g = 10m/s2) for every 10m of spaceship length; this allows more than enough acceleration to cross a lightyear in mere seconds. This also means that normal general relativity can exist around your spaceship (you won't be ripped apart by gravity waves). The event horizon behind you, and the "white hole" in front of you should be many thousands of kilometers away. I'm still not sure I would recommend a space-walk.

I am starting from the position that hyperdrives are possible. I am using both ontological and phenomenological approaches. There is a deeply entrenched problem with hyper-drive that I am trying to overcome. GR and QM have very little to say about how to achieve it. We just don't know how to manipulate space into a wormhole. But if there is a way, then how will we interface with such a technology?

Gravity can overpower and drag light into the darkness of the event horizon. Light is what stands in the way of the hyperdrive. Gravity is what we want to work with. If gravity can manifest as a particle (most likely a tachyon) then we can try to manipulate this tachyon by transmuting it into another kind of tachyon as it inevitably passes through our tachyon condensation plane. I don't know what we can use to transmute a graviton into a hypothetical 'wormion'; the idea of a wormion is to (1) avoid the GR requirement of using black holes and singularities to create wormholes and (2) a unit of tachyonic matter that has the acceleration profile that we need to acheive FTL travel.

If you can think of a way to compel Gravity to reveal its secrets, I am very interested. Does the fourth spatio-energetic dimension hold the key? Space-time itself is warped and curved by mass-energy. But is there an easier way to manipulate the geodesic? If so, do we have any way to interface with a geodesic manipulating technology?

What would the physics community have to measure or observe to lay the foundation for a hyperdrive physics?

You said "If you can think of a way to compel Gravity to reveal its secrets, I am very interested. Does the fourth spatio-energetic dimension hold the key? Space-time itself is warped and curved by mass-energy. But is there an easier way to manipulate the geodesic? If so, do we have any way to interface with a geodesic manipulating technology?"

"Does the fourth spatio-energetic dimension hold the key?" It is my opinion that it does. I do not agree that space-time itself is warped by the presence of mass. But mass is distributed along the 4th dimension of space as well as within 3 dimensions of vector space. It has not only volume but forth. Forth being a measure of distribution of mass along the 4th dimension but also the amount of variation in the energy of the particles. Energy variation will alter spatial position. We are limited by the amount we can alter potential energy directly, because 3D vector space always exists overlapping a limited range of potential energy or 4th dimensional space. Which leaves variation in kinetic energy.There is the problem of increasing inertia with increasing change in 3D spatial position leading to apparent increasing mass.Rotation of a craft together with extreme cooling might help because super cooled substances might seem to loose their centre of gravity. This might provide a layer of "insulation" and therefore a brake from the continuous afore ward motion of all matter.Jason, this speculation is for you. It is not my desire to build a UFO for journeys into hyperspace. However I would like to suggest this as an alternative to modified tachyon particles because I do not think they are real entities and I do not think that space-time is the correct interpretation and I do not think that space as an empty void filled with fields alone is the best description either.

As I consider the implications of various hyper-drive models, I cannot avoid the implications of black holes, event horizons, and gravity itself. Gravity is very insistent about one thing: if you are in a gravity field, it does not matter how much mass you have; you will accelerate at the same rate, independent of your mass. If you look over the edge of a black hole energy well, and drop your photon beacon into the black hole, it will redshift all the way down to the event horizon. One can almost imagine an energetic topography; like mountains and valleys of potential energy. If you stand upon the highest mountain of potential energy and look down into the valley, you will see the redshifted light from beacons down below. Likewise, those in the energetic valley will look up to the energy mountaintop and be burned and blinded by the blueshifted beacon there upon. But why should matter, objects with some mass feel a gravitational acceleration up to the top of the energy mountain?

The answer is because all matter looses potential energy at every opportunity. It may be considered as the matter descending an energy gradient. Which it will do unless prevented or if energy is input. This one of the rules that is required by this model. Change of energy and change of spatial position are the same phenomenon but described differently.So this loss of potential energy could be regarded as causing the matter to move towards the centre of the Megauniverse hypersphere or the loss of potential energy could be regarded as a consequence of that change in spatial position. Both occur together.

The matter is part of the material universe rather than EM image.The material universe is contracting along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension (not contracting directly within 3D space).

The 4th spatio-energetic dimension runs from the exterior to the interior of every mass from every point on the surface through to the centre of gravity and on into afore space.The exterior of any mass is moving always towards 4th dimensional position of the most interior point. Reducing its potential energy as it does so. A smaller mass will be able to reduce its own potential energy even more by moving towards the larger mass and into the "gravity well" of that larger mass, so to speak. This motion is observed within 3D vector space as gravitational attraction.

We just do not recognise 4th dimensional change in position that is occurring to every stationary mass with 3D vector space and we will not observe the disturbance caused by this motion except through the force of gravitational attraction either. This is because the change in position that gives rise to gravity is occurring along the 4th dimension not within 3D vector space.

It's well that ,I always beleived what our expansion datas must be improved .

The Dark Energy and Dark matter are the same it seems to me .

What I find interesting is the fact to have an activation of Dark Matter in mass ,thus space in Mass .The velocity of these spheres is proportional with mass ,but before this stability of mass it exists an acceleration of these spheres towards the balance ,the coded rule in fact .Thus it's possible to detect them ,this acceleration is interesting 0 to the velocity of rot ,thus mass .thus energy .....

There are problems with wormholes that touch on issues of acceleration. A wormhole is similar to a black hole, but at the black hole horizon r = 2GM/c^2 something funny happens. Instead of a particle continuing inwards it emerges elsewhere at an identical opening. So it is as if we have to identical black holes where the points on the horizon, or some region just above the horizon r = 2GM/c^2 + δ, for 2GM/c^2 >> δ, are identified with each other. The interior r < 2GM/c^2 + δ define three dimensional balls, which on the two wormhole openings are sutured together to form a three dimensional sphere. Think in one dimension lower, where two disks or hemispheres sewed together to give a 2-dim sphere. So what happens is that an infalling particle to the wormhole instead of being drawn further inwards, where geodesics or paths focus inwards, the path suddenly jumps across a Lanzcos junction where geodesics diverge or defocus elsewhere away from and outside an identical wormhole opening. In gravitation geodesics focus under a source term T^{00} > 0, or where there are positive masses. If the paths or geodesics defocus or diverge away due to a source that source is negative T^{00} < 0. Hawking & Ellis write on these energy conditions in their seminal text “Large Scale Structure of Spacetime.”

A major problem which occurs is that this source must ultimately be quantum mechanical, if we are to think that quantum mechanics governs everything on a fundamental level. A negative energy source is one where there is no minimal energy eigenvalue, such as the S-level in the hydrogen atom that cuts off energy states at a minimum. For T^{00} there is no minimal bound on the eigenvalues and a particle or field can transition endlessly to lower energy and emit an infinite amount of energy. This is not the sort of thing physicists want to happen. This is a divergence that is a sort of disaster. Ford and Roman demonstrated in some special cases how nature will generally fill such negative energy “holes” with positive energy to prevent this from happening. This is called the quantum interest conjecture.

Exotic spacetime solutions (wormholes, warp drives, Krasnikov tubes, etc) have the property T^{00} < 0, which cause all sorts of problems. The universe appears organized in a ways which prevents these solutions on a large scale. A wormhole for instance would connect a region outside of a larger black hole (larger than the wormhole opening) to its interior. One could then access information in the BH interior concealed by the event horizon. This concealment of information has an entropy content proportional to the area of the horizon area. So this amounts to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The principles underlying quantum gravity are very unlikely to permit this sort of thing.

The area = entropy rule was derived by Bekenstein. The argument for this is not hard to see. If a bottle with some entropy S is dropped into a black hole and disappears this appears to be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Bekenstein worked to solve this issue and found the rule that entropy is proportional to a black hole horizon area. His derivation involves computing all the harmonic oscillator states which could comprise a black hole and to do a statistical mechanical calculation. It is not terribly hard to do.